Retrieve scrum tasks from ServiceNow, filterable by assignee or parent story, with a configurable result limit.
List scrum tasks, optionally filtered by story
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| assigned_to | No | Filter by assignee | |
| story_sys_id | No | Filter by parent story sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results can be filtered by story, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or default behavior. It provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has good schema/annotation coverage, but the description omits mention of the other filters and doesn't explain return values or list behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on expected results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and filter semantics. The description mentions only the story filter, which partially overlaps with schema. It doesn't add meaning for limit or assigned_to, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scrum tasks'), making the purpose clear. It also mentions an optional filter by story, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention the other filters (limit, assigned_to) or distinguish from sibling tools like list_stories, so it's not fully differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_stories or list_my_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. This is a clear gap in usage instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.